24.9.2011

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/41

Action brought on 26 July 2011 — SRF v Council

(Case T-407/11)

2011/C 282/77

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: SRF Ltd (New Delhi, India) (represented by: F. Graafsma and J. Cornelis, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

—

Annul the Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 469/2011 of 13 May 2011 amending Regulation (EC) No 1292/2007 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film originating in India (OJ 2009 L 129, p. 1, hereafter referred to as ‘the contested Regulation’); and

—	Order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on one main plea in law, alleging that the contested Regulation infringes Article 9(6) of the Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1), in that:

Firstly, the said Article stipulates that the anti-dumping duty for exporters or producers which have made themselves known but were not included in the sample shall not exceed the weighted average dumping margin established for parties selected in the sample, whereby zero and de minimis margins shall be disregarded. By imposing an anti-dumping duty of 15,5 % on SRF, the contested Regulation violates this rule since the weighted average dumping margin for the parties selected in the sample, whose dumping margins are not zero or de minimis is lower than 15,5% ; and

Secondly, by requiring an exporting producer to request an interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of the Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 for the application of Article 9(6), in a situation in which existing anti-dumping duty rates are adjusted following the expiry of concurrent countervailing measures, the contested Regulation inserts a condition into Article 9(6) that is absent in the express text of that provision, which amounts to the impermissible interpretation by the Council.

(1) OJ 2009 L 343, p. 51 (consolidated text)